Cram wrote on Aug 30, 2011, 20:48:One, changing resolutions is brutal (you have to go one at a time and it refreshes each time), and at 720p (1920x1080 resolution not available for some reason) on my 16:10 monitor I get nearly 2 inch black bars (forget the technical name for these) on the top and bottom of the screen. No idea why it isn't using my entire monitor.

720p and 1080p are both 16:9, so on a 16:10 monitor, they will show black bars since they're "wider" than your monitor. It's the same reason why both 16:9 and 16:10 video sources will show black bars on a 4:3 display, or why movies that are wider than 16:9 will show black bars on any standard aspect ratio screen.

Most new monitors and TVs are 16:9 these days, and some developers aren't bothering to include 16:10 support in their games anymore. Sad but true. Anyway, since this game is apparently going to be on Xbox Live Arcade and the PS3 store, they probably figure that 16:9 is all they need to support.

I appreciate the info. I actually did a double check on this monitor. My apologies, it turns out my monitor is 16:9 and I'm an idiot. Asus VW246H

I should have known it was 16:9 anyway, as I do almost everything at 1920x1080 res on this thing. I assume the Serious Sam DD is some kind of video issue, or it's just designed this way for some reason.

Grabbed a copy. I like it so far, except for a couple things. One, changing resolutions is brutal (you have to go one at a time and it refreshes each time), and at 720p (1920x1080 resolution not available for some reason) on my 16:10 monitor I get nearly 2 inch black bars (forget the technical name for these) on the top and bottom of the screen. No idea why it isn't using my entire monitor. Second, the jumping is a bit of a challenge at times.

Game is a day one pickup for me, and I am certainly surprised they didn't put a $29.99 price-tag on this one, they could have gotten away with it easily. The game is substantially bigger than the first one.

Question for people:

Will you still be singing Runic's praises when Torchlight 3, the subscription based (or possibly F2P micro-transaction) MMO, comes out?

Over the years here at Bluesnews, I've seen people praise a company one day and then do complete 180's when that company takes one of their franchises down the MMO route. Words like "greed" and "sell-out" take over those threads.

I'll be picking it up. Not much else around that time that I want. Doubt Torchlight 2 will be out by then, with the lack of any new information we've been getting over the last couple months. Rage looks good, but my machine won't do it justice so I gotta wait for a new comp.

Had a request to cover a friend/co-workers next weekend shifts since, as he's told the manager, he's going to a friends wedding. He'll actually be on what I'm sure he does consider a religious sabbatical; he'll be playing Deux Ex all weekend.

I too have a couple weddings coming up, interestingly enough around the exact times Torchlight 2 and Diablo 3 are released...

All the media and content we've seen in this game up to this point have been from the first three levels of the game, unfortunately. I understand the weapon concern, but.... As with any Serious Sam game, you get the more exotic weapons the further you go in. I think the storyline may also impact what we're seeing, as this game takes places at the beginning of Mental's first invasion of Earth so all Sam's got at the beginning of game are more Earth based weapons. I obviously can't say for certain, but I'm 99% sure there will be some interesting and ridiculous weapons in this game. All the classics are confirmed (laser pulse gun, cannon ball etc) and I'm sure there will be some new ones. Atrocious level design is your opinion and that's fine, and maybe it is but I challenge you to explain how the level design in this gameplay video is any different to the level designs in SS1, SE and SS2. It's exactly the same, you could say that it is atrocious on purpose. Random buildings and cover laid out in completely random weird places for no reason with random items hanging around for some reason that when collected spawn random enemies. Every Egypt level from the previous games has been like this. It may be atrocious, but it's 100% Serious Sam level design to a tee.

Following development of this game very closely, and from direct quotes and actions taken from developers, Croteam is on the ball for this one. Their forum activity has been amazing, and they've taken a lot of feedback from their fans to heart. They've admitted SS2 missed the mark big time, and this time they're listening to their fans and what they want. The latest tidbit about split screen isn't the only thing they've thrown in that people on their forums and elsewhere wanted.

The public outcry to RealID was enough to get Blizzard to change their plans. Granted, RealID was a serious privacy issue and one I personally believe is much larger then this consistent internet connection requirement issue. I think it is still possible that, perhaps not at launch but maybe through a patch in the future, enough outcry can change this in some way. I hope as much for those that want it anyway.

StingingVelvet wrote on Aug 2, 2011, 03:17:So if I can install the game and activate it, then "go offline" and never need a net connection again, I will buy the game. Let's hope they confirm that.

Nice to see a blue post about this, and hope it is confirmed. Bash has always been a bit...odd(?) about providing information and I definitely want a confirmation before I completely believe it. Diablo has always been a franchise I love and want everyone else to enjoy, so if this news is confirmed (Bash's post just isn't enough of a confirmation for me) and it is enough to help a few bluesnewsers here reconsider buying it, then awesome.

Obviously if a blizzard dev is complaining about not being able to play diablo on a plane trip on his laptop... its confirmed to NOT be the case.

Diablo 3 will also require a persistent Internet connection, and Blizzard's Rob Pardo agrees that it's kind of a pain in the butt. "I want to play Diablo 3 on my laptop in a plane, but, well, there are other games to play for times like that,"

Yep. I acknowledged it was not the case a couple posts above the one you quoted there. Unfortunate it is.

StingingVelvet wrote on Aug 2, 2011, 03:17:So if I can install the game and activate it, then "go offline" and never need a net connection again, I will buy the game. Let's hope they confirm that.

Nice to see a blue post about this, and hope it is confirmed. Bash has always been a bit...odd(?) about providing information and I definitely want a confirmation before I completely believe it. Diablo has always been a franchise I love and want everyone else to enjoy, so if this news is confirmed (Bash's post just isn't enough of a confirmation for me) and it is enough to help a few bluesnewsers here reconsider buying it, then awesome.

Hump wrote on Aug 1, 2011, 15:46:has anyone tried this? Is it better than the original?

It requires a persistent online connection, so naturally no one at Bluesnews has tried it out of principle. jk

It's basically exactly the same as the previous release, with most of the bugs gone. Textures a little worse for some reason, but everything else is about the same. I'm sure they made some small improvements here and there as well, better balancing etc.

Krovven wrote on Aug 1, 2011, 15:14:Guild Wars however can be played both single-player or multiplayer co-op. Which is EXACTLY the same as the Diablo games. Guild Wars requires an internet connection, even if you are playing solo with bots. This is no different than what is being bitched about here for D3.

While I am not bothered by persistent connection, I think it is different and can see others points of view.

Diablo 1, 2 and LOD were all playable and supported 100% offline. There is no reason to have not expected that for Diablo 3, and they announce this right before the beta and short to release. Guild Wars, right from its announcement, was understood to be 100% online only. There was absolutely no reason to bitch about that (Guild Wars persistent connection requirement), because right off announcement we were told exactly what Guild Wars was going to be (100% online). They announced D3 years ago, and with a franchise that has had single player offline support for 15 years, it was entirely fair to expect offline play in Diablo 3.

GW and Diablo are also different genres (not so much now I guess with D3). Two different genres with quite separate expectations and gameplay.

Having only ever played the Diablo franchise online over the last 15 years, I won't make any noise about constant online connection required. That's how I've always played anyway, and if this change helps filter out some of sh*t that plagued D1 and D2 online, great.

I will hold off final judgement on the AH situations until a little after release, though admittedly I'm not very excited about it at this time. Would have been nice if they left it a Gold-Only AH, and found another way to combat the third party websites selling stuff.